Talk:Wall Street bombing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Logansubich17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Number of casualties
The list of List of terrorist incidents claims 40 people were killed in this attack, this article says 33. --Merbabu 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The boilerplate says 38. The Annual Report of the Police Department listed in the bibliography gives the death toll as 39. Does that count as a primary or secondary source? 162.157.208.187 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pruned dead link

 * The Wall Street Bombing

--NightMonkey 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) the terrorist attack, of 1920, has something to do with the attack  of september, 11, 2000. in the attack of 1920 there was no big office boss in the building,when the bombing happen, and in the bombing of september,11,2000. the same thing happened. the regular  workers were sacrifice, while the bosses were,out of the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.115.142 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"the era of political bombings in America finally ended in 1932."
This statement seems to be quite false. Did the author of this line not hear of the Weathermen?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Change "the era" to "this era".  Also requested citation. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Galleanist bomb attacks in the U.S. continued for another 12 full years, culminating with the attempted assassination of Webster Thayer in September 1932. See Paul Avrich, Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background, Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 213.  Don01 comment added by talk) 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I question the use of the word continued. This wasn't a continuous process. There was an occasional bomb or a batch in the case of the S+V related ones. Something like "continued intermittently", "there were occasional", "on several occasions as late as 1932" would be more accurate.

And it really doesn't belong in this entry at all. Later bombings elsewhere are part of the history of the Galleanists or US anarchists. If one wanted to add a refernce to a later Wall Street bombing it would be to this event that seems not to have its own entry:

1975 January 24: FALN bombs Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four and injuring more than 50.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"The note was analyzed and its language structure found similar to other 'bomb' leaflets"
What note? This is missing a first reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafflesia (talk • contribs)


 * Indeed so. I have added a which to draw attention to the omission. – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Repaired now. Text of the flyer etc.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Most Deadly Act Until...?
On the History of New York page (third paragraph): :"It was the most deadly act of politically-motivated terror on American soil until the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995."

On this page (first paragraph): :It was more deadly than the bombing of the Los Angeles Times building in 1910 and remained the deadliest bomb attack on U.S. soil until the Bath School bombings in Bath Township, Michigan seven years later.

There seem to be two deadlier acts of terrorism after this on. So, which one is it? --Sunny (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On the entry for Bath School disaster we learn that 45 people died. So that was deadlier than the Wall St. bombing. And it certainly would be hard to claim that the Bath School disaster was not "politically motivated," since the bomber was upset about a property tax. So it looks like the Wall Street bombing entry is correct and the History_of_New_York_City_(1898-1945) is wrong. I expect the Bath School disaster is just obscure because it was local and therefore gets missed. I wouldn't be surprised if newspapers at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing referenced the Wall St. bombing and failed to mention the Bath School bombing. The New York Times references the Bath School disaster only once, years after it happened (October 24, 1936), without providing details. Just says that "a madman's bomb" blew up the schoolhouse and killed 44, which is roughly accurate. The Times seems not to have covered the event when it occurred.


 * If you don't correct the History_of_New_York_City_(1898-1945)#Jazz_Age History of New York entry soon, I'll be happy to. Here's a good citation:


 * Clinton County Republican-News May 26, 1927


 * It gives the total deaths as 44. The 45 figure comes from the fact that the perpetrator killed his wife before heading to the school, possibly a day or two earlier.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting info
Resolve: The bomb caused more than $2 million in property damage ($23,500,000 with inflation[6]) and destroyed most of the interior spaces of the Morgan building.[7] With: Investigators were puzzled by the number of innocent people killed and the lack of a specific target, other than buildings that suffered relatively superficial, non-structural damage. 71.139.160.117 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Location
I'd expect to read (in the intro maybe even) the bombing being on the street (+ address?), not in/against a building. DePiep (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

neutrality
some of the language in this article seems like it is narrative and intended to impart to the reader an opinion, rather than simply reporting on the actions. for instance, the paragraph where the anarchists are called "ruthless" seems a bit over blown, and i checked the reference and couldn't find that characterization, but even if it were there, i don't think it is the job of wikipedia to declare whether these actions should be considered ruthless. commie (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I second this. Very obviously opinionated section, not encyclopedic whatsoever. Gwiltherin (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)